Miranda V. Arizona Court Case Summary

The Miranda v. Arizona court case that occurred during 1966 was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. The case first began in 1963 with the arrest of resident Ernesto Miranda by the Phoenix Police Department. He was accused of raping, kidnapping, and robbing. During the two hour interrogation, he confessed to the crimes. However, Miranda was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation. He was not informed of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment right prohibits self- incrimination and double jeopardy. It prevents the person accused from being a witness against himself. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused person the right to a speedy and public trial, a fair jury, and an attorney if the accused suspect wants one. Therefore during the case, Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right, which is the right against self-incrimination, …show more content…
He was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that the police had violated his rights and unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court did not agree with him and approved of the conviction. Miranda then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the case was reviewed in 1966. The Supreme Court decided that Miranda’s confession could not be used as evidence since the police did not inform Miranda of his constitutional rights. This ruling was done by a 5-4 decision. The court stated that the two amendments are to protect the accused person from government abuse. The government and the police cannot deprive suspects of their basic liberties. Chief justice Warren stated that the right to an attorney enables the suspect to tell his side of the story without being scared and it eliminates the presence of evils in the interrogation process. Therefore, since Miranda was not informed of the two rights, his confession could not be used against

Show More